They allowed 17 points and 365 total yards today, so no, they didn't suck. What people are seeing as "suck" is a combination of letdown from "elite" from early in the season and clutch plays being given up on crucial moments while the defense philosophically holds its ground.

Suck was 2009-2010. Today, the Seahawks defense allowed two touchdown drives. In 2009-2010, it was allowing four or five per game.

hawksfan515 wrote:Two bad performances in a row. I used to think they were no question top 5, but now we are lucky if they are top 10. They look below average honestly.

The defense did not have a bad performance today. They had a really bad play at the end of the game but held an 8 and 3 team to 17 points on the road yet.

A VERY depleted 8-3 team to 17 points.

Last week I thought it was fatigue. This week? I dont know anymore.

3 second year players and and 2 rookies (counting Irvin) on your starting unit, you really expect to see some struggles, some inconsistencies. We are learning, we are showing a lot of promising signs. We are close but not quite there yet. More push from the middle of the DL is something to look for in the off season. The reason fans are so disappointed with the defense right now is they had too high of expectations for such a young unit.

warden wrote:3 second year players and and 2 rookies (counting Irvin) on your starting unit, you really expect to see some struggles, some inconsistencies. We are learning, we are showing a lot of promising signs. We are close but not quite there yet. More push from the middle of the DL is something to look for in the off season. The reason fans are so disappointed with the defense right now is they had too high of expectations for such a young unit.

Yeah actually. We really only allowed 3 trips into the redzone. Problem is, 2 of them were converted for TD's, and the other was close to being a TD, and the Bears obviously thought they could get one by going for it on 4th down.

We used to have a really good red zone defense, but lately it's been a sieve.

3rd down and long still a HUGE problem (scheme?) and giving up that long pass with 24 secs. left was COMPLETELY inexcusable. Pass rush was very poor against an o-line that if you described it as 'patchwork' you'd be complimenting them. I expect the Seahawks defense will make Lindley or whoever is the QB for AZ next week look awesome even though the Jets held the Cards to 6 today.

pehawk wrote:Thing is, the Bears didn't even TRY to maximize anyone other than Marshall.

They didn't really have anybody else, tho. Bennett isn't all that.

I knew it, you knew it, the Seahawks knew it, Bears knew it, Carol Burnett knew it, everyone knew it was going to Marshall. All knew Marshall was the only way to get yards or score, yet, at times, it was pitch and catch.

I think we are far from "sucking." They made some plays today. That 4th down stop was clutch, and we held their running game in check. Late in the game when they had to stop them and get the ball back, they did. I think they were playing at such a high level early, that our expectations became too high. We have a good defense. They are very young and very susceptible to the high and low tides of a game. They tend to let things snowball. As they grow this will change. No, they aren't "elite," but they are good enough to keep us in ball games. The pass rush is a concern, and I'm not sure why they aren't getting it done. Probably just the same inconsistent tendencies the rest of the defense faces. There was definitely a different philosophy today. We ran a lot of soft zones for some reason. I think they were trying to limit the big play and give the offense a chance to win. I do wonder if the lingering suspensions played into some it. Either way, no, we don't suck. We are going through some growing pains, but they are still playing well enough. I'm hoping they figure it out soon and get over some of these mistakes due to inexperience.

Take a look at that defensive performance minus all the yards after the bullshit calls, and it looks a whole lot better. They were fatigued and let down after some pretty bad juju, and still held on just enough to let the offense seal the game.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Look at it as potential. When this offense and defense are both hitting on all 8 no one can hang with them. Problem seems to be getting them both at that level simultaneously. In those cases where one or the other is faltering the other seems to respond. Today's game case in point.

Evil_Shenanigans wrote:Look at it as potential. When this offense and defense are both hitting on all 8 no one can hang with them. Problem seems to be getting them both at that level simultaneously. In those cases where one or the other is faltering the other seems to respond. Today's game case in point.

Right???? Talent wise I think we are one of the best teams in the league.... We just can't pair our amazing defense with an amazing offense.

Honestly, it's almost like the hawks gotta keep every game close. When teams are scoring too much, Hawks stop them. When they're behind, Hawks don't stop them. On and on and on, and we have nailbiters practically every game except for 3.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:They allowed 17 points and 365 total yards today, so no, they didn't suck. What people are seeing as "suck" is a combination of letdown from "elite" from early in the season and clutch plays being given up on crucial moments while the defense philosophically holds its ground.

Suck was 2009-2010. Today, the Seahawks defense allowed two touchdown drives. In 2009-2010, it was allowing four or five per game.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Take a look at that defensive performance minus all the yards after the bullshit calls, and it looks a whole lot better. They were fatigued and let down after some pretty bad juju, and still held on just enough to let the offense seal the game.

Agreed. That penalty on Irvin followed by the ticky tack call on Branch, those created a seismic shift in the game for our defense, much like the tough call against ET the week before.

Our secondary did play like dog shit though. Even in man coverage they looked pretty terrible. I'm not worried- yet. But if they still look that bad next week, then there is a good chance that our team could be in deep trouble. Yeah, Brandon Marshall is awesome and all that, but what about that nobody that burned Browner and should have had like an 80 yard TD that hit him on the hands only to drop it, you know because he's terrible? That was alarming.

Last edited by kearly on Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We desperatly need a pass rushing defensive tackle. I think thats what we are missing to become elite. I'm not even asking for a Cortez Kennedy type. Even a guy like Rocky Bernard when he was in his prime would help this defense immensely.

I think our problem in the pass rush is that most good base pass rushing teams don't rely on specialists like we do. They have freaks of nature like Julius Peppers or JPP. What they are not doing is getting a ton of sacks from 1st round draft picks at DT. They are getting most of their sacks from physical freaks at DE. Now Irvin and Clemons are athletic freaks but they are not physical freaks. They will never bulldoze a 320 pound guard to the ground for an instant sack like Peppers did to us today.

Basically, our two DEs are a lot like blitzing LBs. If they can't run around a blocker one way or the other, then they aren't going to create pressure.

BTW, this is why I said that I'd probably have preferred Coples over Irvin last year- and I really loved the Irvin pick. Coples isn't off to a great start obviously, but he was the one guy in that class that gave you a chance for a physically dominant pass rushing DE, and without that player I doubt we'll ever see an effective base pass rush.

That said, Seattle's pass rush explodes to its feet when it blitzes. Seattle's blitzing pass rush is as deadly as it's base rush is impotent. There wasn't a whole lot of base rush in the Green Bay game, for example.

I honestly think Pete Carroll needs to blitz more. Blitzing comes at a cost, but it's very rare that a Pete Carroll blitz gets picked up. Press the recievers to disrupt the quick stuff and force a QB to throw a 2 second pass. Unless you are playing Peyton Manning, good things should happen.

Obviously, I am a novice on this matter, and I also understand that you can't get predictable with blitzing. It's more complicated than I make it seem. That said, Seattle does appear to hurt themselves when they over commit to the base rush, ESPECIALLY when paired with zone coverage. I realize that is in Carroll's roots as a Kiffin disciple, but it didn't work before he came here, it didn't work in 2010, and it hasn't worked the last two weeks. It's best to stick with what works.

kearly wrote:I think our problem in the pass rush is that most good base pass rushing teams don't rely on specialists like we do. They have freaks of nature like Julius Peppers or JPP. What they are not doing is getting a ton of sacks from 1st round draft picks at DT. They are getting most of their sacks from physical freaks at DE. Now Irvin and Clemons are athletic freaks but they are not physical freaks. They will never bulldoze a 320 pound guard to the ground for an instant sack like Peppers did to us today.

Basically, our two DEs are a lot like blitzing LBs. If they can't run around a blocker one way or the other, then they aren't going to create pressure.

BTW, this is why I said that I'd probably have preferred Coples over Irvin last year- and I really loved the Irvin pick. Coples isn't off to a great start obviously, but he was the one guy in that class that gave you a chance for a physically dominant pass rushing DE, and without that player I doubt we'll ever see an effective base pass rush.

That said, Seattle's pass rush explodes to its feet when it blitzes. Seattle's blitzing pass rush is as deadly as it's base rush is impotent. There wasn't a whole lot of base rush in the Green Bay game, for example.

I honestly think Pete Carroll needs to blitz more. Blitzing comes at a cost, but it's very rare that a Pete Carroll blitz gets picked up. Press the recievers to disrupt the quick stuff and force a QB to throw a 2 second pass. Unless you are playing Peyton Manning, good things should happen.

Obviously, I am a novice on this matter, and I also understand that you can't get predictable with blitzing. It's more complicated than I make it seem. That said, Seattle does appear to hurt themselves when they over commit to the base rush, ESPECIALLY when paired with zone coverage. I realize that is in Carroll's roots as a Kiffin disciple, but it didn't work before he came here, it didn't work in 2010, and it hasn't worked the last two weeks. It's best to stick with what works.

Love it when Kearly straightens stuff out. Thanks man!

And I am really unsure about how good Earl is right now. Is he playing well?

kearly wrote:I think our problem in the pass rush is that most good base pass rushing teams don't rely on specialists like we do. They have freaks of nature like Julius Peppers or JPP. What they are not doing is getting a ton of sacks from 1st round draft picks at DT. They are getting most of their sacks from physical freaks at DE. Now Irvin and Clemons are athletic freaks but they are not physical freaks. They will never bulldoze a 320 pound guard to the ground for an instant sack like Peppers did to us today.

Basically, our two DEs are a lot like blitzing LBs. If they can't run around a blocker one way or the other, then they aren't going to create pressure.

BTW, this is why I said that I'd probably have preferred Coples over Irvin last year- and I really loved the Irvin pick. Coples isn't off to a great start obviously, but he was the one guy in that class that gave you a chance for a physically dominant pass rushing DE, and without that player I doubt we'll ever see an effective base pass rush.

That said, Seattle's pass rush explodes to its feet when it blitzes. Seattle's blitzing pass rush is as deadly as it's base rush is impotent. There wasn't a whole lot of base rush in the Green Bay game, for example.

I honestly think Pete Carroll needs to blitz more. Blitzing comes at a cost, but it's very rare that a Pete Carroll blitz gets picked up. Press the recievers to disrupt the quick stuff and force a QB to throw a 2 second pass. Unless you are playing Peyton Manning, good things should happen.

Obviously, I am a novice on this matter, and I also understand that you can't get predictable with blitzing. It's more complicated than I make it seem. That said, Seattle does appear to hurt themselves when they over commit to the base rush, ESPECIALLY when paired with zone coverage. I realize that is in Carroll's roots as a Kiffin disciple, but it didn't work before he came here, it didn't work in 2010, and it hasn't worked the last two weeks. It's best to stick with what works.

I agree with the we don't have a physical freak that just beat guys for sacks but I also don't think that's Pete's style. He relies on a bit of trickery to get his pass rush. Just the fact that his primary pass rusher is a 3-4 LB playing 4-3 end says it all really and just like you said, when he dials up his blitzes they are usually quite effective.

But I gotta disagree that we should blitz more. Typically if you're blitzing, you are going to be using players from the middle of the field. We struggle covering the middle of the field not blitzing, I think it would put even more strain on our already weak LB/Nickel corner coverage.

Every fan of every team always says their team should blitz more when they are struggling with pass rush but like you said, it's never that easy. Honestly I don't feel like our defensive struggles on are on the coaches at all. The players are in position, they just keep having mental mistakes that are allowing the plays to happen. The long completion to Marshall at the end of the game is a perfect example. Sherman was in position to defend it the pass, he just went for the pick instead of the deflection. So maybe it is on the coaches but not because of their play calling but because their players can't pull their head out of their ass and quit trying to force big plays.

kearly wrote:I think our problem in the pass rush is that most good base pass rushing teams don't rely on specialists like we do. They have freaks of nature like Julius Peppers or JPP. What they are not doing is getting a ton of sacks from 1st round draft picks at DT. They are getting most of their sacks from physical freaks at DE. Now Irvin and Clemons are athletic freaks but they are not physical freaks. They will never bulldoze a 320 pound guard to the ground for an instant sack like Peppers did to us today.

Basically, our two DEs are a lot like blitzing LBs. If they can't run around a blocker one way or the other, then they aren't going to create pressure.

BTW, this is why I said that I'd probably have preferred Coples over Irvin last year- and I really loved the Irvin pick. Coples isn't off to a great start obviously, but he was the one guy in that class that gave you a chance for a physically dominant pass rushing DE, and without that player I doubt we'll ever see an effective base pass rush.

That said, Seattle's pass rush explodes to its feet when it blitzes. Seattle's blitzing pass rush is as deadly as it's base rush is impotent. There wasn't a whole lot of base rush in the Green Bay game, for example.

I honestly think Pete Carroll needs to blitz more. Blitzing comes at a cost, but it's very rare that a Pete Carroll blitz gets picked up. Press the recievers to disrupt the quick stuff and force a QB to throw a 2 second pass. Unless you are playing Peyton Manning, good things should happen.

Obviously, I am a novice on this matter, and I also understand that you can't get predictable with blitzing. It's more complicated than I make it seem. That said, Seattle does appear to hurt themselves when they over commit to the base rush, ESPECIALLY when paired with zone coverage. I realize that is in Carroll's roots as a Kiffin disciple, but it didn't work before he came here, it didn't work in 2010, and it hasn't worked the last two weeks. It's best to stick with what works.

I agree with the we don't have a physical freak that just beat guys for sacks but I also don't think that's Pete's style. He relies on a bit of trickery to get his pass rush. Just the fact that his primary pass rusher is a 3-4 LB playing 4-3 end says it all really and just like you said, when he dials up his blitzes they are usually quite effective.

But I gotta disagree that we should blitz more. Typically if you're blitzing, you are going to be using players from the middle of the field. We struggle covering the middle of the field not blitzing, I think it would put even more strain on our already weak LB/Nickel corner coverage.

Every fan of every team always says their team should blitz more when they are struggling with pass rush but like you said, it's never that easy. Honestly I don't feel like our defensive struggles on are on the coaches at all. The players are in position, they just keep having mental mistakes that are allowing the plays to happen. The long completion to Marshall at the end of the game is a perfect example. Sherman was in position to defend it the pass, he just went for the pick instead of the deflection. So maybe it is on the coaches but not because of their play calling but because their players can't pull their head out of their ass and quit trying to force big plays.

I disagree amil; most of the 3rd and mid-long conversions seem to occur after the QB escapes the initial pressure and finds someone over the middle. I think by dialing up the bliz more you force the QB to throw ealier than he wants and have a better chance at getting home. I would start bringing the heat more and couple that with press man coverage to throw the WR's off so it's not just pitch and catch.

amill87 wrote:I agree with the we don't have a physical freak that just beat guys for sacks but I also don't think that's Pete's style. He relies on a bit of trickery to get his pass rush. Just the fact that his primary pass rusher is a 3-4 LB playing 4-3 end says it all really and just like you said, when he dials up his blitzes they are usually quite effective.

But I gotta disagree that we should blitz more. Typically if you're blitzing, you are going to be using players from the middle of the field. We struggle covering the middle of the field not blitzing, I think it would put even more strain on our already weak LB/Nickel corner coverage.

Every fan of every team always says their team should blitz more when they are struggling with pass rush but like you said, it's never that easy. Honestly I don't feel like our defensive struggles on are on the coaches at all. The players are in position, they just keep having mental mistakes that are allowing the plays to happen. The long completion to Marshall at the end of the game is a perfect example. Sherman was in position to defend it the pass, he just went for the pick instead of the deflection. So maybe it is on the coaches but not because of their play calling but because their players can't pull their head out of their ass and quit trying to force big plays.

I disagree amil; most of the 3rd and mid-long conversions seem to occur after the QB escapes the initial pressure and finds someone over the middle. I think by dialing up the bliz more you force the QB to throw ealier than he wants and have a better chance at getting home. I would start bringing the heat more and couple that with press man coverage to throw the WR's off so it's not just pitch and catch.

I'll admit some of this depends on if Thurmond is an upgrade over Trufant in the nickel (I think he is) and what is going on with our starting corners. I do think if we can get better coverage from the LBs/Nickel CB than a little more blitzing would help but until than, I think blitzing would just do more harm than good

hawksfansinceday1 wrote: I expect the Seahawks defense will make Lindley or whoever is the QB for AZ next week look awesome even though the Jets held the Cards to 6 today.

Really? Cutler to Marshall on the road is on the same level as replacement AZ QB to Fitz at home?

I mean, sure, the D isn't playing up to what we expected from them after the first 6 or so games, but that kind of stuff tends to happen. Defenses are always ahead of offenses early in the season, and then as offenses build chemistry and rhythm, that shifts as the season wears on. It's a trend that happens every season to many, many teams... not just the 2012 Seahawks.

Think about it. The Bears had a 4-game stretch where they didn't allow more than 7 points in three of those games as they pushed their record to 5-1. But in their last 3 games, they've allowed 65 points, and got burned for 2 long late-game drives by a team with an offense that ranks in the bottom third of the league. Does their defense suck now, too?

hawksfansinceday1 wrote: I expect the Seahawks defense will make Lindley or whoever is the QB for AZ next week look awesome even though the Jets held the Cards to 6 today.

Really? Cutler to Marshall on the road is on the same level as replacement AZ QB to Fitz at home?

I mean, sure, the D isn't playing up to what we expected from them after the first 6 or so games, but that kind of stuff tends to happen. Defenses are always ahead of offenses early in the season, and then as offenses build chemistry and rhythm, that shifts as the season wears on. It's a trend that happens every season to many, many teams... not just the 2012 Seahawks.

Think about it. The Bears had a 4-game stretch where they didn't allow more than 7 points in three of those games as they pushed their record to 5-1. But in their last 3 games, they've allowed 65 points, and got burned for 2 long late-game drives by a team with an offense that ranks in the bottom third of the league. Does their defense suck now, too?

Great answer Volsung.

And the Cards are playing their best defensive football now. I guess that's kinda what I want.

truehawksfan wrote:We have the players to be an elite defense and it's up to the coaches to put these players in position to make plays.

Why do you allow Marshall to run free with less then 30 seconds in the 4th qtr? Double-up on him! He has over 80 receptions and Forte is 2nd on the team witn 27.

Gus Bradley's a good coach, but he needs mentoring.....Monte Kiffin as CO-Defensive Coordinator?

Gotta stick up for the coaches on that one.

They can't help that the d-lineman missed horribly on Cutler for him to have time to make the throw and they also can't help that there were three Seahawks around Marshall and Sherman went for a pick instead of going for the deflection/tackle.

The coaches put the players in position, the players just didn't execute

hawksfansinceday1 wrote: I expect the Seahawks defense will make Lindley or whoever is the QB for AZ next week look awesome even though the Jets held the Cards to 6 today.

Really? Cutler to Marshall on the road is on the same level as replacement AZ QB to Fitz at home?

I mean, sure, the D isn't playing up to what we expected from them after the first 6 or so games, but that kind of stuff tends to happen. Defenses are always ahead of offenses early in the season, and then as offenses build chemistry and rhythm, that shifts as the season wears on. It's a trend that happens every season to many, many teams... not just the 2012 Seahawks.

Think about it. The Bears had a 4-game stretch where they didn't allow more than 7 points in three of those games as they pushed their record to 5-1. But in their last 3 games, they've allowed 65 points, and got burned for 2 long late-game drives by a team with an offense that ranks in the bottom third of the league. Does their defense suck now, too?

Jets held Lindley to 10-31 for 71 yards and a pick. I don't think the Hawks defense is capable of a performance like that frankly. We've seen them make Kolb look all-pro earlier this year and Skelton play well against them last year and I got a feeling they'll struggle at times vs. AZ this week. Not trying to be a Negetive Nelly but they haven't looked good the last couple of weeks vs. Cutler and Tannehill. Sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

hawksfansinceday1 wrote:Jets held Lindley to 10-31 for 71 yards and a pick. I don't think the Hawks defense is capable of a performance like that frankly. We've seen them make Kolb look all-pro earlier this year and Skelton play well against them last year and I got a feeling they'll struggle at times vs. AZ this week. Not trying to be a Negetive Nelly but they haven't looked good the last couple of weeks vs. Cutler and Tannehill. Sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

And the last time they were at home, they pitched a shut out versus the same team the Cardinals just lost to.

Arizona's offense is in shambles. They have lost 8 straight. They are swirling the toilet bowl right now and if we were to drop this game at home, it will be the most painful loss of a bunch of painful losses this year.

hawksfansinceday1 wrote: I expect the Seahawks defense will make Lindley or whoever is the QB for AZ next week look awesome even though the Jets held the Cards to 6 today.

Really? Cutler to Marshall on the road is on the same level as replacement AZ QB to Fitz at home?

Jets held Lindley to 10-31 for 71 yards and a pick. I don't think the Hawks defense is capable of a performance like that frankly. We've seen them make Kolb look all-pro earlier this year and Skelton play well against them last year and I got a feeling they'll struggle at times vs. AZ this week. Not trying to be a Negetive Nelly but they haven't looked good the last couple of weeks vs. Cutler and Tannehill. Sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

The Hawks defense did exactly that, essentially, in their last two home games.

Ponder: 11/22, 63 yards, 1 INTSanchez: 9/22, 124 yards, 1 INT

This coming game is at home. And each of the games where you've highlighted flaws has been on the road. I agree that the defense has not played all that well - especially in the 4th quarter - on the road, but it's been a totally different beast at home all season long.

amill87 wrote:Arizona's offense is in shambles. They have lost 8 straight. They are swirling the toilet bowl right now and if we were to drop this game at home, it will be the most painful loss of a bunch of painful losses this year.

Agree 100%. I don't think the Hawks will lose the game. I'm just saying the defense will allow more points that they should considering the state of the Cards offense right now. But I do believe RW and the O will score enough to get the win. Just think it will be closer than it should considering the stae of the Cards O. Might well be wrong though considering it's at the C-Link. Hope I am. Just not a lot of faith in the Hawks D right now, that's all.

hawksfansinceday1 wrote:Jets held Lindley to 10-31 for 71 yards and a pick. I don't think the Hawks defense is capable of a performance like that frankly. We've seen them make Kolb look all-pro earlier this year and Skelton play well against them last year and I got a feeling they'll struggle at times vs. AZ this week. Not trying to be a Negetive Nelly but they haven't looked good the last couple of weeks vs. Cutler and Tannehill. Sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

You haven't noticed a difference in our road and home performances? I suggest you start watching games.

hawksfansinceday1 wrote:Jets held Lindley to 10-31 for 71 yards and a pick. I don't think the Hawks defense is capable of a performance like that frankly. We've seen them make Kolb look all-pro earlier this year and Skelton play well against them last year and I got a feeling they'll struggle at times vs. AZ this week. Not trying to be a Negetive Nelly but they haven't looked good the last couple of weeks vs. Cutler and Tannehill. Sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

You haven't noticed a difference in our road and home performances? I suggest you start watching games.

Oh wait, I haven't been? Oh yeah, you're right. My bad. I'll take up watching Seahawks' games before actually commenting on a forum dealing with the Seahawks. ...Yo Ace, did you notice I said (referring to the game vs. AZ this coming Sunday) "Might well be wrong though considering it's at the C-Link"?